[AfriNIC-rpd] Re: [resource-policy] AfriNIC Policy Proposal: IPv6 ProviderIndependent (PI) Assignment for End-Sites

[Vincent Ngundi]

Hi AlanL,

On Mar 15, 2007, at 5:18 PM, Alan Levin wrote:

> Vincent, many thanks for this.
>
> btw, my name is Alan Levin, please don't confuse me with Andrew  
> Alston.
Noted.

>
> Just for clarity, I am IN FAVOUR of ANY IPv6 PI policy.
>
> I feel this process has dragged on far too long and I think it will  
> be a horrible decision to postpone it any further.
That's the same feeling I get from the list.

>
> The comment you placed below - under the name Alan Levin - was  
> based on an email that relates to a compromise in order to get a  
> policy, and not my true position.
Thanks for the clarification. However, the comment has greatly  
contributed to this discussion :)

-v

>
> Sincerely,
>
> Alan
>
>
>
> On 13 Mar 2007, at 3:51 PM, Vincent Ngundi wrote:
>
>> Hi All,
>>
>> Below is a summary of the above policy as per the discussions we  
>> have had so far.
>>
>> So far, we have the following arguments:
>>
>> (a) Andrew Levin 	(30.01.2007)
>> proposed that we should not assign prefixes < /48 due to concerns  
>> about the global routing table
>>
>> (b) Frank Habitcht 	(30.01.2007)
>> was in agreement that there was need for PI assignments < /48  
>> especially in the case of IXP's since the prefix would not appear  
>> in the global routing table.
>>
>> (c) Mark Elkins		(01.02.2007)
>> Suggested that each /48 assignment should be made from a unique / 
>> 32 (which should be preserved to accommodate  growth)
>>
>>
>> From the above points:
>>
>> (b) above seems to have outweighed (a) above and as such we should  
>> allow for the assignment prefixes < /48 as per the draft.
>>
>> as for (c) above, organisations which require >= /32 should become  
>> an LIR.
>>
>> In conclusion, it seems that the draft policy should remain as it is.
>>
>>
>> Currently statistics:
>>
>> * Yea (those in support of the policy)			:	6
>> * Nay (those _not in support of the policy)		:	1
>>
>> Finally, I wish to encourage more members of the community to give  
>> their views on this policy, or at least indicate whether they are  
>> in favour of it or not.
>>
>> Abuja is only 5 weeks away!
>>
>> -v
>>
>> On Jan 30, 2007, at 11:22 AM, Andrew Alston wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Vincent,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I’m ok with all of this except for the following:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> * The intial provider independent assignment size to an end-site  
>>> should be a /48, or a shorter/longer prefix if the end-site can  
>>> justify it.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I’m happy with /48s, I’m even happier with bigger blocks, but  
>>> there should *NEVER* be a situation where the block is smaller  
>>> than this in the global routing tables.  If the blocks can ever  
>>> be smaller than /48 in size it is going to create major BGP  
>>> filtering headaches.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Can this wording be clarified?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Many Thanks
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Andrew Alston
>>>
>>> TENET – Chief Technology Officer
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> resource-policy mailing list
>>> resource-policy at afrinic.net
>>> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/resource-policy
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> rpd mailing list
>> rpd at afrinic.net
>> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd
>
> ---------------------------------------------
> Alan Levin
> Tel: +27 21 409-7997
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> rpd mailing list
> rpd at afrinic.net
> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd
>